Stopped by gardai for speeding when i wasnt...

Imsoscareddd

Im 18 and today was stopped for the first time since starting to drive last november for speeding... I wasnt speeding and never do but know the gardai stopped me for having a full car and being young. I seen this garda drive past in the opposite direction as i pulled out from a parking space and knew by them staring i thought i was a provisional.. I turned left onto a 50 kph road and after about 300 meters driving ahead i noticed them behind me.. I slowed down to 35-40 kpm from 50 just to be safe because i understand they must do there job and the get suspicious with full cars of young people.. She stopped me after i turned left off the road and said did i know the speed i was going.. I said 35-40 and she laughed saying i could walk beside a car at that pace that she needed to do 65 to catch up to me... Im not great at maths but of she was doing 65 to catch up with me and i was 300 meters ahead of her i was hardly going much over 40... Even though the speed limit was 50.. She was being an ass at the start until she found outi was a full licened and then started being nice and told me to just be careful. She took my details anyway and mentioned 2 points and a fine before she realised i had my full ...i just want to know if i will definately get a notice or was she just trying to scare me and is it worth while apealling if i do get the notice? Thank you all advice is needed as im new to being stopped and how it doesnt happen again even though i know its her word against mine and o was t speeding?

billy few mates

There seems to be a lot of this happening lately....

darlett

Not to be negative, but my old man recently got done for talking on the phone when driving. He was pulled over on the hard shoulder making a call asking for directions to a job he was asked to quote for when cops drove by saw this and doubled back, only catching up with him when the call was ended and he was back on the road a very short distance. His vision is far from 20/20 can he barely read or write a text without putting it right up to his face so the idea of him being casually dialing an unfamiliar number he had written down is laughable and quite implausible.
But Mr. Garda and Mrs. Van-Garda pulled him and did him. He appealed it but they did have a 2 verses 1 situation. And do you know what, their versions matched. :rolleyes: If you're just 1 v 1 then maybe you have more of a leg to stand on, but sure our boys in blue never fib so it must be you right? :mad:

Eh, rambling rant. Best of luck to you with this.

whomitconcerns

so he was caught using his mobile while driving and you still think the police were wrong?

schemingbohemia

whomitconcerns wrote: »

so he was caught using his mobile while driving and you still think the police were wrong?

Did you mis-read the part where it was stated he was pulled over on the hard shoulder, parked?

whomitconcerns

i did actually...its a bit harsh so..my mistake..bit too literal on the law they were, illegal as it was...

guttenberg

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Did you mis-read the part where it was stated he was pulled over on the hard shoulder, parked?

Hard shoulder of a motorway?

OP, nothing you can do now so forget about it. If something does come in the post then you could try argue your case. Until then, we'd just be hypothesising.

El Gato

Car full of "people"? I would say a car full of "witnesses" to back up the fact you were doing less than the limit

EDIT: If it did go to court (which I doubt)

syklops

Imsoscareddd wrote: »

Im 18 and today was stopped for the first time since starting to drive last november for speeding... I wasnt speeding and never do but know the gardai stopped me for having a full car and being young. I seen this garda drive past in the opposite direction as i pulled out from a parking space and knew by them staring i thought i was a provisional.. I turned left onto a 50 kph road and after about 300 meters driving ahead i noticed them behind me.. I slowed down to 35-40 kpm from 50 just to be safe because i understand they must do there job and the get suspicious with full cars of young people.. She stopped me after i turned left off the road and said did i know the speed i was going.. I said 35-40 and she laughed saying i could walk beside a car at that pace that she needed to do 65 to catch up to me... Im not great at maths but of she was doing 65 to catch up with me and i was 300 meters ahead of her i was hardly going much over 40... Even though the speed limit was 50.. She was being an ass at the start until she found outi was a full licened and then started being nice and told me to just be careful. She took my details anyway and mentioned 2 points and a fine before she realised i had my full ...i just want to know if i will definately get a notice or was she just trying to scare me and is it worth while apealling if i do get the notice? Thank you all advice is needed as im new to being stopped and how it doesnt happen again even though i know its her word against mine and o was t speeding?

Id love to see this go to court and id love a decent lawyer to do a dummies guide to maths/physics and use the guards own words as defence evidence, but alas none of this will ever happen.

You said once she found out you had your full license she started being nice and told you to just be careful. I'd say she lost your details to be honest. Not worth the hassle of the paperwork.

Sam Kade

I saw a Garda car tailgating on the cork mallow road 2 days ago. He wasn't chasing the driver and he wasn't looking for road either as he had no siren on.

gramar

The female Guard was just saving face by mentioning points and and fine.
You can rest easy.

Tiradon

darlett wrote: »

Not to be negative, but my old man recently got done for talking on the phone when driving. He was pulled over on the hard shoulder making a call asking for directions to a job he was asked to quote for when cops drove by saw this and doubled back, only catching up with him when the call was ended and he was back on the road a very short distance. His vision is far from 20/20 can he barely read or write a text without putting it right up to his face so the idea of him being casually dialing an unfamiliar number he had written down is laughable and quite implausible.
But Mr. Garda and Mrs. Van-Garda pulled him and did him. He appealed it but they did have a 2 verses 1 situation. And do you know what, their versions matched. :rolleyes: If you're just 1 v 1 then maybe you have more of a leg to stand on, but sure our boys in blue never fib so it must be you right? :mad:

Eh, rambling rant. Best of luck to you with this.

Seems unfair alright. To play devil's advocate for a moment, and I'm in no way suggesting that this is the case, but you have only your Dad's side of the story in this instance who you are blindly siding with while at the same time criticising the Gardai for siding with each other. I'm not saying that the Gardai are never wrong or are infallible but in my, admittedly limited, experience, most people who get caught doing something they shouldn't prefer to recount a tale of persecution rather than personal liability.

endacl

Sam Kade wrote: »

I saw a Garda car tailgating on the cork mallow road 2 days ago. He wasn't chasing the driver and he wasn't looking for road either as he had no siren on.

I saw one coming off a roundabout without indicating...

:rolleyes:

Imsoscareddd

El Gato wrote: »

Car full of "people"? I would say a car full of "witnesses" to back up the fact you were doing less than the limit

EDIT: If it did go to court (which I doubt)

So they will stand as witnesses if i dd hve to appeal? I mean it does seem harsh if i do get a notice ...

listermint

gramar wrote: »

The female Guard was just saving face by mentioning points and and fine.
You can rest easy.

Doubt it, anytime they mention that its in the post. And they never seem to actually tell you outright at the time.

El Gato

Imsoscareddd wrote: »

So they will stand as witnesses if i dd hve to appeal? I mean it does seem harsh if i do get a notice ...

I can't answer that question (if your passengers would be willing to confirm your speed in court) but as mentioned earlier, 2 v 1 in favour of the Garda so I couldn't see how you couldn't have your witnesses back up your claim of being under the limit. If all witnesses have the same 'opinion' of your speed I can't see a problem.

But as said, don't worry too much about it now. Deal with it IF it happens

Imsoscareddd

syklops wrote: »

Id love to see this go to court and id love a decent lawyer to do a dummies guide to maths/physics and use the guards own words as defence evidence, but alas none of this will ever happen.

You said once she found out you had your full license she started being nice and told you to just be careful. I'd say she lost your details to be honest. Not worth the hassle of the paperwork.

Im hoping thats the case because im not a boy racer or anything i drive a 1.1 seat like ... I just know my insurance would sky rocket with points so young thanks for the advice

Imsoscareddd

El Gato wrote: »

I can't answer that question (if your passengers would be willing to confirm your speed in court) but as mentioned earlier, 2 v 1 in favour of the Garda so I couldn't see how you couldn't have your witnesses back up your claim of being under the limit. If all witnesses have the same 'opinion' of your speed I can't see a problem.

But as said, don't worry too much about it now. Deal with it IF it happens

Ye ok thanks for the advice i hope she just lost the details

Imsoscareddd

listermint wrote: »

Doubt it, anytime they mention that its in the post. And they never seem to actually tell you outright at the time.

Ye she just skimmed over it and told me what speed i actually was going because she stopped me on a different road to the one she said i was 'speeding'

Sam Kade

endacl wrote: »

I saw one coming off a roundabout without indicating...

:rolleyes:

Smart man, do you feel good now :rolleyes:

endacl

endacl wrote: »

I saw one coming off a roundabout without indicating...

:rolleyes:

That's mad! I know you're taking the piss, but strangely enough: I actually entered a roundabout today and there was a near collision with a Garda car that turned off without indicating (would've been crossing lanes into my (outside) lane to exit).

We were both moving at a slow enough pace, to be fair, and there was no aggression shown (he gave me a gentle double-beep) but I was a bit annoyed. Of all the cars I could possibly have an incident with, knowing my luck I'd hit the local patrol car! :rolleyes:

gramar

Imsoscareddd wrote: »

Ye she just skimmed over it and told me what speed i actually was going because she stopped me on a different road to the one she said i was 'speeding'

Did they actually clock you with the radar or was it just her guessing you might have been? Unless you were bombing along and it's clearly obvious you're well over the limit how could you be fined when it's down to her ability to judge speed as she was going in a car in the opposite direction?

Imsoscareddd

gramar wrote: »

Did they actually clock you with the radar or was it just her guessing you might have been? Unless you were bombing along and it's clearly obvious you're well over the limit how could you be fined when it's down to her ability to judge speed as she was going in a car in the opposite direction?

Nope she didnt clock me it was her own personal judgement ... She assumed i was speeding asked me what speed i thought i was going but never told me what she thought i was going.. She said she had to go 65 to catch up to me on a 50 road... I dont see how i could of been speeding . Its been 2 days and ive had no notice yet so im not sure what will happen ...

schemingbohemia

Imsoscareddd wrote: »

Nope she didnt clock me it was her own personal judgement ... She assumed i was speeding asked me what speed i thought i was going but never told me what she thought i was going.. She said she had to go 65 to catch up to me on a 50 road... I dont see how i could of been speeding . Its been 2 days and ive had no notice yet so im not sure what will happen ...

I don't think it's possible for a Garda to take a speeding case against someone purely on the basis of her intuition as to what speed you were doing.

If she had no speed camera in the car there is no way this is going to court or will points be issued.

cubancigars

Yeah. I have often seen a garda on the mobile phone while driving the cop car.
Rules of there own.

Captain Chaos

cubancigars wrote: »

Yeah. I have often seen a garda on the mobile phone while driving the cop car.
Rules of there own.

They are allowed to, it's part of their job to be able to do so.

Cody Pomeray

cubancigars wrote: »

Yeah. I have often seen a garda on the mobile phone while driving the cop car.
Rules of there own.

yeah, literally, actually.

It's perfectly legal for the emergency services to use these devices when carrying out their duties, for obvious reasons.

Section 3 of the 2006 Act
(1) A person shall not while driving a mechanically propelled
vehicle in a public place hold a mobile phone.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a member of the Garda
Síochána, an ambulance service or a fire brigade of a fire authority
(within the meaning of the Fire Services Act 1981) who is acting in
the course of his or her duties and holding a mobile phone in relation
to the performance of his or her duties.

Dubwat

Devil's Advocate:
Aren't the Guards kinda 'working to rule' at the moment and refusing to use their personal mobiles for work purposes? Are they issued work mobile phones?

I guess it could get interesting in a court case if a lawyer went looking for the mobile phone records for a Guard driving a police vehicle?

billy few mates

I was driving round a roundabout the other morning when I had to swerve for a Guard in a squad car cutting across in front of me, chatting on his mobile phone, I almost dropped my shaver into my cornflakes....

Del2005

schemingbohemia wrote: »

I don't think it's possible for a Garda to take a speeding case against someone purely on the basis of her intuition as to what speed you were doing.

If she had no speed camera in the car there is no way this is going to court or will points be issued.

A Garda can form an opinion that you where speeding and prosecute. There's no need for a gun or camera, not that they even need to be working correctly. It then comes down to who the judge believes in court.

billy few mates

Del2005 wrote: »

A Garda can form an opinion that you where speeding and prosecute. There's no need for a gun or camera, not that they even need to be working correctly. It then comes down to who the judge believes in court.

I doubt that...

Del2005

billy few mates wrote: »

I doubt that...

Sorry I was wrong, it's 2 Gardaí that can do you without evidence.

billy few mates

It is not necessary to prove that the electronic or other apparatus was accurate or in good working order.

I'm surprised at this, surely if they can use this equipment to convict you then they have, at the very least, an obligation to ensure this equipment is maintained in good working order and regularly calibrated with calibration records held on file for inspection where any doubt as to its serviceability exists...?

UK law appears to allow for a defence where the equipment is found to be defective.
http://www.trafficlawyers.co.uk/speeding.htm

Del2005

billy few mates wrote: »

I'm surprised at this, surely if they can use this equipment to convict you then they have, at the very least, an obligation to ensure this equipment is maintained in good working order and regularly calibrated with calibration records held on file for inspection where any doubt as to its serviceability exists...?

Too many people got off speeding charges by asking to see the calibration documents of the device used to catch them and finding it out of date. So instead of fixing the system to make sure that the apparatus they use is always in tip top condition and correctly calibrated they changed the law so that they don't have to fix any machines.

source

Del2005 wrote: »

Too many people got off speeding charges by asking to see the calibration documents of the device used to catch them and finding it out of date. So instead of fixing the system to make sure that the apparatus they use is always in tip top condition and correctly calibrated they changed the law so that they don't have to fix any machines.

Incorrect, judges were getting pissed off with every person charged with speeding asking to see the calibration cert for the speed device used. The reason for their annoyance was the speed guns were correctly calibrated (done every few months, if memory serves).

So the judges decided that unless the accused had some legitimate reason to believe the gun was incorrectly calibrated they couldn't ask to see the cert.

source

billy few mates wrote: »

I doubt that...

There is an offence on the summons manual called traveling at speed, which only requires the member to believe the driver is driving too fast for what the road conditions will safely allow. The member does not need to quote the exact speed the car was traveling in this instance. No idea of the section off the top of my head.

For the offence of exceeding the speed limit, the member has to be able to say, by how much the limit was exceeded.

Del2005

source wrote: »

Incorrect, judges were getting pissed off with every person charged with speeding asking to see the calibration cert for the speed device used. The reason for their annoyance was the speed guns were correctly calibrated (done every few months, if memory serves).

So the judges decided that unless the accused had some legitimate reason to believe the gun was incorrectly calibrated they couldn't ask to see the cert.

If judges decided that you couldn't ask to see the calibration cert why is it a statue that the equipment doesn't need to be working?

source

Del2005 wrote: »

If judges decided that you couldn't ask to see the calibration cert why is it a statue that the equipment doesn't need to be working?

Please show me the section where it says this. I can say with certainty that I have never read a section of the road traffic acts that state v speed detection devices don't need to be in full working order.

billy few mates

Here...

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0025/sec0081.html

(b) electronic or other apparatus (including a radar gun) which is not capable of producing a permanent record.

It is not necessary to prove that the electronic or other apparatus was accurate or in good working order.

billy few mates

I just think its unfair that in Ireland I could be prosecuted on the basis of evidence gathered using a device which may or may not even be working properly whereas in the UK I have a right to be satisfied that the equipment is properly calibrated, accurate and fully serviceable.
Apart from the initial fine for speeding there are long term implications on the cost of you car insurance when you pick up penalty points, surely Irish citizens should have as much right as UK citizens when it comes to administering this justice...?


Another good reason to keep my UK Drivers Licence I think.....!

jimmycrackcorm

Del2005 wrote: »

Sorry I was wrong, it's 2 Gardaí that can do you without evidence.

What does 2 gardai have to do with that? That's all about the speed recording equipment. Turrets no mention in that link about Gardai guessing speeds

source

billy few mates wrote: »

Here...

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0025/sec0081.html

The difference between what del said and what the 2010 act days is huge.

Del says the act stated the equipment doesn't need to be in working order.

The act actually says there is no need to prove the device is working.

My point about judges is correct up to the 2010 act, as I left the Gardai around that time.

Realt Dearg Sec

source wrote: »

Del says the act stated the equipment doesn't need to be in working order.

The act actually says there is no need to prove the device is working.

The difference sounds a bit academic all the same, doesn't it? If you have no need to prove the device is working, then by definition, it doesn't actually need to be in working order for the Guard to say the driver in question is speeding. So what's the difference, practically speaking, for the driver who is possibly being wrongfully accused of speeding?

schemingbohemia

Del2005 wrote: »

A Garda can form an opinion that you where speeding and prosecute. There's no need for a gun or camera, not that they even need to be working correctly. It then comes down to who the judge believes in court.

Fair enough, but I would doubt there are more than a handful of these cases taken per year and I would be fairly sure that none would be taken without other charges also being laid against the driver - if you can give examples of where a sole charge of driving in excess of the speed limit has been brought I'd love to see it.

source

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

The difference sounds a bit academic all the same, doesn't it? If you have no need to prove the device is working, then by definition, it doesn't actually need to be in working order for the Guard to say the driver in question is speeding. So what's the difference, practically speaking, for the driver who is possibly being wrongfully accused of speeding?

Well we are discussing the law, and the law is nothing if not academic. Differences like we're discussing may seem trivial to a lay person when in fact the truth could be quite different.

There is nothing to say the judge cannot ask to see the calibration certificate. Just that the The Gardai do not have to prove to the defence that the device is working correctly.

slimjimmc

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

What does 2 gardai have to do with that? That's all about the speed recording equipment. Turrets no mention in that link about Gardai guessing speeds

Because the law states that the opinion of one witness cannot be accepted. Since the law does not preclude the opinion of multiple witnesses the opinion of 2 or more witness can be accepted.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0025/sec0081.html

(5) In proceedings for an offence referred to in subsection (1), if proof of the offence involves proof of the speed at which a person (whether the accused or another person) was driving, the uncorroborated evidence of one witness stating his opinion as to that speed shall not be accepted as proof of that speed.

Del2005

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

What does 2 gardai have to do with that? That's all about the speed recording equipment. Turrets no mention in that link about Gardai guessing speeds

Thanks to Slimjimmc and Source for giving a better explanation than I can.

slimjimmc wrote: »

Because the law states that the opinion of one witness cannot be accepted. Since the law does not preclude the opinion of multiple witnesses the opinion of 2 or more witness can be accepted.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0025/sec0081.html

source wrote: »

There is an offence on the summons manual called traveling at speed, which only requires the member to believe the driver is driving too fast for what the road conditions will safely allow. The member does not need to quote the exact speed the car was traveling in this instance. No idea of the section off the top of my head.

For the offence of exceeding the speed limit, the member has to be able to say, by how much the limit was exceeded.

source wrote: »

Well we are discussing the law, and the law is nothing if not academic. Differences like we're discussing may seem trivial to a lay person when in fact the truth could be quite different.

There is nothing to say the judge cannot ask to see the calibration certificate. Just that the The Gardai do not have to prove to the defence that the device is working correctly.

So a judge could ask to see if it's calibrated/working, then even if it wasn't they still have to convict on the evidence from a broken device. To me that means that the Gardaí can knowingly use broken equipment to convict drivers for speeding.

(b) electronic or other apparatus (including a radar gun) which is not capable of producing a permanent record.

It is not necessary to prove that the electronic or other apparatus was accurate or in good working order

source

Del2005 wrote: »

Thanks to Slimjimmc and Source for giving a better explanation than I can.






So a judge could ask to see if it's calibrated/working, then even if it wasn't they still have to convict on the evidence from a broken device. To me that means that the Gardaí can knowingly use broken equipment to convict drivers for speeding.

I believe if a judge requested a calibration cert and found the device was not correctly calibrated, then there would not be a conviction. The original rule and the clarification in the 2010 act was implemented to stop accused people clogging up the courts with nuisance requests, not to make it easier for Gardai to get convictions.

Del2005

source wrote: »

I believe if a judge requested a calibration cert and found the device was not correctly calibrated, then there would not be a conviction. The original rule and the clarification in the 2010 act was implemented to stop accused people clogging up the courts with nuisance requests, not to make it easier for Gardai to get convictions.

That's not what the legislation says thought. It says that the device doesn't have to be working so the judge can't acquit the accused if the device isn't working correctly. And how would the accused be able to ask the judge to check the device is working if they can't use it as a defence anyway? Unless there's some other bit of legislation that I'm missing.

Why is someone who is accused of a crime/offence making a nuisance request is they want proof that they actually committed the crime? In my job if an item is out of calibration it's a huge issue, if product gets out it's even bigger. But our law is now written that someone could loose their job because the Gardaí can't keep track of their equipment. The Gardaí and courts should be roll modelling best methods not changing the law because it's a bit of hassle to provide a calibration cert.

Arciphel

Sorry but in my personal experience most gardai are far from role models when it comes to their behaviour. I live across the road from a guard who drives daily in a car with nct, tax and insurance two years out of date. Very frustrating!

Losty Dublin

source wrote: »

There is an offence on the summons manual called traveling at speed, which only requires the member to believe the driver is driving too fast for what the road conditions will safely allow. The member does not need to quote the exact speed the car was traveling in this instance. No idea of the section off the top of my head.

For the offence of exceeding the speed limit, the member has to be able to say, by how much the limit was exceeded.

Some years ago my aunt was convicted of a speeding offence on the evidence of a Garda who chased her after seen her driving well in excess; it was well over a ton on a then 60 MPH road. So yes, it can and does happen that a reading isn't always needed and a case makes it to a judge.